DATE:  June 8, 1992
CASE NO. 92-WPC-00003



IN THE MATTER OF
JOHN A. GILL,
          COMPLAINANT,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
RESPONDENT.


BEFORE: THE SECRETARY OF LABOR


                                FINAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL
                                      
      Before me for review is the Recommended Order of
Dismissal (R.O.D.) issued by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
Samuel J. Smith on May 5, 1992, in the above-captioned case
which arises under the employee protection provision of the
Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C.  1367 ~1988).  The
ALJ recommended dismissal without prejudice on the ground
that the requirements for voluntary dismissal under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(i) had been satisfied.
      In a letter dated April 28, 1992, Complainant informed the
ALJ that he was withdrawing his appeal because the Air Force had
offered him another job, and he was separately pursuing his
allegedly improperly low performance appraisals through the Merit
Systems Protection Board.  Respondent has not responded to
Complainant's letter, a copy of which was served upon it.
           Dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) 1/ is
consistent with the requirements of that Rule; 
Respondent has not filed an Answer or a Motion for
Summary Judgment.  See Nolder v. Kaiser Engineers.
Inc., Case No. 84-ERA-5, Sec. Dec., June 28,
1985, slip op. at 67; Cornish v. Consolidated Edison
Company of New York. Inc., Case No. 88-CAA-5, Sec.
Dec., September 29, 1989.  Accordingly, this case is
DISMISSED without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
Rule 41(a)(1)(i). 
[PAGE 2]
SO ORDERED.

               LYNN MARTIN
               Secretary of Labor



Washington, D.C.





  Rule 41 (a)(l)(i) provides for dismissal of an action "by filing
a notice of dismissal at any time before service by the adverse
party of an answer or of a motion for summary judgement, whichever
first occurs . . . . Unless otherwise stated in the notice of
dismissal . . . the dismissal is without prejudice...."